Comparison of<i>in ovo</i>and post‐hatch vaccination with particular reference to infectious bursal disease. A review

Negash, Tamiru; Al-Garib, S. O.; Gruys, E.

doi:10.1080/01652176.2004.9695170

Cited by 44 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When considering in ovo vaccination, maternal antibody interference with vaccine efficacy is critical [52]. It is common for poultry producers worldwide to vaccinate and, in many cases, hyperimmunize their breeder stock for many diseases, including MD, FP, ND, IB, IBD and AI.…”

Section: In Ovo Immunization Of Poultrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated mass immunization of poultry: the prospect for nonreplicating human adenovirus-vectoredin ovovaccines

Avakian

Poston

Kong³

et al. 2007

Expert Review of Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automated in ovo vaccination is an efficient method for mass immunization of poultry. Although in ovo vaccination has been used to mass immunize chickens against several infectious diseases, there are common poultry diseases for which in ovo-compatible vaccines are not commercially available. It was recently demonstrated that in ovo administration of a nonreplicating human adenovirus vector encoding an avian influenza virus hemagglutinin induced protective immunity against highly pathogenic avian influenza. The advantages of this new class of poultry vaccine include in ovo delivery of a wide variety of pathogen-derived antigens, high potency in a single-dose regimen, rapid production in response to increased demand, no replication of the vector, no pre-existing immunity to human adenovirus in chickens, compatibility with automated in ovo administration and no interference with epidemiological surveys of natural infections.

show abstract

Section: In Ovo Immunization Of Poultrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated mass immunization of poultry: the prospect for nonreplicating human adenovirus-vectoredin ovovaccines

Avakian

Poston

Kong³

et al. 2007

Expert Review of Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is well known that less attenuated strains may cause lesions in the bursal follicles and, thus, immunosuppression will occur even in vaccinated birds. A 'trimming complex' vaccine has been developed, in which the vaccine virus is complexed in vitro with an optimum amount of antibodies (Whitfill et al, 1995) and is used for in ovo vaccination (Negash et al, 2004).…”

Section: Infectious Bursal Diseasementioning

confidence: 99%

Economically Important Non-oncogenic Immunosuppressive Viral Diseases of Chicken—Current Status

Balamurugan

Kataria

2006

Vet Res Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immunosuppressive viral diseases threaten the poultry industry by causing heavy mortality and economic loss of production, often as a result of the chickens' increased susceptibility to secondary infections and sub-optimal response to vaccinations. This paper aimed to present an up-to-date review of three specific economically important non-oncogenic immunosuppressive viral diseases of chickens, viz. chicken infectious anaemia (CIA), infectious bursal disease (IBD) and hydropericardium syndrome (HPS), with emphasis on their immunosuppressive effects. CIA and IBD causes immunosuppression in chickens and the socio-economic significance of these diseases is considerable worldwide. CIA occurs following transovarian transmission of chicken anaemia virus and has potential for inducing immunosuppression alone or in combination with other infectious agents, and is characterized by generalized lymphoid atrophy, increased mortality and severe anemia. The virus replicates in erythroid and lymphoid progenitor cells, causing inapparent, sub-clinical infections that lead to depletion of these cells with consequent immunosuppressive effects. The IBD virus replicates extensively in IgM(+) cells of the bursa and chickens may die during the acute phase of the disease, although IBD virus-induced mortality is highly variable and depends, among other factors, upon the virulence of the virus strain. The sub-clinical form is more common than clinical IBD because of regular vaccination on breeding farms. Infection at an early age significantly compromises the humoral and local immune responses of chickens because of the direct effect of B cells or their precursors. HPS is a recently emerged immunosuppressive disease of 3-6-weeked broilers, characterized by sudden onset, high mortality, typical hydropericardium and enlarged mottled and friable livers, with intranuclear inclusion bodies in the hepatocytes. The agent, fowl adenovirus-4, causes immunosuppression by damaging lymphoid tissues; the presence of IBD and CIA viruses may predispose for HPS or HPS may predispose for other viral infections. Synergism with CIA or other virus infections or prior immunosuppression is necessary to produce IBH-HPS in chickens and the susceptibility of chickens infected with fowl adenovirus varies throughout the course of CIA infection. The mechanism of immunosuppression has been studied in detail for certain chicken viruses at molecular levels, which will provides new opportunities to control these diseases by vaccination.

show abstract

“…3,[6][7][8] In ovo vaccination results in exposure to antigens between 17 and 19 days of embryonation and allows the developing chick to begin mounting an immune response before hatching, thus providing some protection when placed in the poultry house at 1 or 2 days of age. 4,5,7 Most poultry respiratory diseases are controlled by spray vaccination at day of age in the hatchery and with boosting, either by spray vaccination or in the drinking water, at 14 to 18 days of age in the field. 3 The severe vaccination reaction occurred in chicks vaccinated at 17.5 to 18.0 days of embryonation, whereas birds vaccinated at 18.5 or 19.0 days of embryonation experienced few clinical signs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Severe Histiolymphocytic and Heterophilic Bronchopneumonia as a Reaction to In Ovo Fowlpox Vaccination in Broiler Chicks

Williams

Smith²,

Garcı́a

et al. 2010

Vet Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Broiler chickens on several farms from a single poultry company experienced neurological signs and mortality in chicks between 3 days and 10 days of age over a 3-week period after use of a fowlpox-vectored infectious laryngotracheitis virus vaccine in ovo. At necropsy the lungs contained numerous tan or gray, opaque to translucent, 0.5-to 2.0-mm nodules in the parenchyma. Microscopic lesions were a multifocal severe lymphohistiocytic and heterophilic bronchopneumonia. Immunohistochemistry was positive for fowlpox virus in macrophages and lymphocytes, and polymerase chain reaction on paraffin-embedded lung tissues was positive for a fowlpox vector virus commonly used as a vaccine. The cause of the neurological signs was not determined. Keywords chickens, in ovo vaccination, fowlpox infectious laryngotracheitis vaccine, lungSeveral farms in a commercial broiler company experienced elevated mortality and neurological clinical signs of tremors, recumbency, torticollis, and wry necks in chicks ranging from 3 days to 10 days of age over a 3-week period in the spring of 2008. No management changes had been instituted at the farm level. Affected farms had a change in vaccination at the hatchery. Chicks on these farms received in ovo a vectored vaccine that contains fowlpox virus (FPV) with infectious laryngotracheitis virus gene inserts. Ages of vaccination ranged from 17.5 to 19.0 days of embryonation. The company veterinarian noted that flocks vaccinated at 17.5 to 18.0 days were more severely affected than those vaccinated at 18.5 or 19.0 days of embryonation. Gross lesions noted in the field included multiple tan to gray, opaque to translucent, 0.5-to 2.0-mm nodules within the lung parenchyma. Samples collected on the farms included formalin-fixed tissues (brains and lungs) and swabs for bacteriology of the brains. Additional farms submitted dead chicks, formalin-fixed and fresh tissue, or live chicks to the Poultry Diagnostic and Research Center laboratory at the University of Georgia for additional testing, including virus isolation and mycology culture. A total of 6 submissions for different farms were analyzed.Brain swabs were negative for bacteria, and virus isolation was negative for avian encephalomyelitis virus in the brains. Lung cultures were negative for bacteria and fungi. Brains and lungs were routinely processed, embedded, and sectioned at 4 mm with routine hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining. All submissions (cases Nos. 1-6) had similar changes in the lungs. Microscopic changes in the lungs included multiple areas of numerous histiocytes and lymphocytes centered on the parabronchi. The inflammatory cells filled the airways of several parabronchi and extended from secondary bronchi (Figs. 1, 2). There were occasional areas of acute necrosis of the inflammatory cells with mild numbers of heterophils migrating through the histiocytes to the foci of necrotic debris. Approximately one half of the lung parenchyma was affected in several sections. Gomori methenamine-silver staining was negative for f...

show abstract

Comparison ofin ovoand post‐hatch vaccination with particular reference to infectious bursal disease. A review

Cited by 44 publications

References 93 publications

Automated mass immunization of poultry: the prospect for nonreplicating human adenovirus-vectoredin ovovaccines

Automated mass immunization of poultry: the prospect for nonreplicating human adenovirus-vectoredin ovovaccines

Economically Important Non-oncogenic Immunosuppressive Viral Diseases of Chicken—Current Status

Severe Histiolymphocytic and Heterophilic Bronchopneumonia as a Reaction to In Ovo Fowlpox Vaccination in Broiler Chicks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About